A JUST LAW CANNOT BE PASSED BY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
TODAY, THE LAW ON REFERENDUMS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT UNDER AN ACCELERATED PROCEDURE
Why the Socialist group voted against
The President «put the PD’s national active leadership in a sack»
After yesterday’s session of the Albanian Parliament, our editor Erion Braçe approached the Secretary General of the Socialist Party of Albania and MP Gramoz Ruçi, who spoke on behalf of the SP parliamentary group, to learn the reasons for the Socialist group’s opposing vote.
Gramoz Ruçi: Before giving you these reasons, I would like to clarify some points and positions of the Socialist Party on this issue.
1. The Socialist Party has consistently maintained that a Constitution is necessary; it has therefore stated and insisted several times that Albania and the Albanians need a new democratic constitution. On this basis, it requested a question-and-answer session and interpellations with the special commission tasked with drafting the constitution. It also responded positively to the request for admission to the Council of Europe, convinced that this historically important step would have a positive effect on the drafting and adoption of the new constitution.
2. It has consistently supported consensus, proceeding from the good-faith belief that drafting a contemporary constitution would serve everyone’s interests. The Socialist Party has had [continues outside the frame] ... Our reasons will be expressed in the session ... would offer positive opportunities both within the country and for Albania’s integration into Europe, given that it would eliminate the process of the transition phase and its admission to the Council of Europe; the Socialist Party has called for parliamentary consensus among the main political forces on the fundamental ideas of the new constitution, has supported possible consensus on many issues in the relevant commission and through its members on it, and now declares that it is willing to examine, discuss and approve it by consensus in Parliament. In accordance with Article 16, point 2, of the law «On the Basic Constitutional Provisions», Parliament is the sole authority that approves, amends or repeals the Constitution and other laws. Such requests for round-table debate from the very beginning of the special commission’s work, to determine the pillars forming the core of the constitution, are not ... because of the importance of the issue, to delegate its legislative power to a body of a different composition elected by the people, as it would also be appropriate for the Assembly to decide that, after adopting the constitution, it should present it to the people so they can have their say through a referendum. Only parliamentary discussion and debate would determine the existing draft and make the people aware, so that they could express their views on the new positions. 4. In principle, the Socialist Party has believed, and will continue to believe, that a referendum as a democratic instrument enables voters to express themselves on acts of a legislative or administrative nature that are of particular importance; that it embodies the sovereignty of the people when constitutional bodies act in accordance with constitutional procedures, and when voters’ comments and suggestions can help bring about the fairest possible solutions to the issues being put to a vote. Thus, we support initiatives for referendums on concrete issues, but not on the principal constitutional law of a people and a state, especially since it is thought that ... (Continued on page 3)
...to choose their opinion, their known direction and opinion, and they evade direct and unrestrained positions, avoid responsibilities, duties and commitments, in order to achieve a specific objective by indirect means. Such methods are also called, in plain popular language, cunning: craftiness.
Why do we describe as tricks the two proposed alternatives for approving the Constitution? To avoid any misunderstanding, I say that the issue is not the popular referendum in itself. No one questions the democratic nature of this form. But then anyone has the right to ask: why is proposal «No. 7 For one (of?) all the people, all for, are in favor of approving the same...» opposed?
Because it is Parliament, as the sole legislative body, that drafted the constitutional draft and is competent to approve it. Good or bad, strong or weak, representative of many or few parties, this is the Parliament that has approved a large number of laws, including an entire chapter of the new Constitution, that on Human Liberties and Rights—laws for which no foreign legislation has reason to boast, let us say Berisha – Meksi – Arbnori. Why should this Parliament not be capable of approving the remaining parts, with the consensus of the two or three negotiations that followed the ... of the law? Why this sudden devaluation of this Parliament by the PD and the President, whom it has served so much?
Here lies the first trick. «Because,» it is said, Parliament or the President should decide to approve the constitutional draft for discussion and adoption, and then, before that, a popular referendum should be held to give it greater legitimacy, a more popular character, in which the opinions of those parties and social groups not represented in Parliament would also be expressed. Why does the President not trust Parliament to call a popular referendum after it has itself first approved the constitutional draft? Is it not more lawful and more democratic to pass the draft through two filters?
Here lies the second trick. «Because, regarding the draft submitted by Mr. Meksi and his parliamentary group to the Constitutional Commission, members of the Commission representing the Socialist Party, the Social Democratic Party and the human-rights [groups] have made numerous fundamental observations about its content in relation to the separation of powers, ...»
(Continued on page 3)
...and appointed from above was nothing other than an openly anti-democratic act, whose essence was the sidelining of Parliament and allowing «his people» to act—an act that may perhaps have caused a fierce split among the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary political forces. The PD’s Aktivti [activist] was taken aback before President Sali Berisha’s message to the people, broadcast on television, in which he put forward the other option for public consideration: approving the Constitution by means of a Referendum. The PD Aktiv Committee did not believe it; everything was put in the sack and its mouth was tied shut. The PD leader Selami is in Strasbourg these days, and we still do not know his position, but as a party soldier, whether at the head or the end of its ranks, he will remain loyal to it. He knows his place well. After all, the President belongs to the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party is the President’s party. The President says Assembly; the Assembly, and the party too, says the same. The President changes his mind because the numbers do not add up and calls for a Referendum; this is what his Democratic Party also wants. Now the PD Secretary Tritan Shehu says that «on behalf of the PD, for ...»
(Continued on page 3)